Obama State of the Union Address...

[pmrmd]

So what's your plan instead if you don't want the government to act? Do nothing, and let income and wealth inequality continue to accelerate? Think feudalism. Do you really want that?

Let people keep the money they make. Flat tax. Giving a 500 dollar tax credit is a joke. 500 bucks? The health insurance costs went up far more than that thanks to their meddling. I thought I was supposed to be saving $2500.00 on my health care costs. The only thing that changed is I can't write it off anymore and I have to pay tax on the monthly premium. You guys can keep trying to defend and adhere to the Obama approach to prosperity but its pretty hard to defend the indefensible.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ducttape]

most wars are about stimulating economy. these wars were not about the world's greater good, against the next Hitler taking over the world. they were about money (esp oil money).

unfortunately, the last 3 wars we have been in did not stimulate the middle class, only certain rich people and companies such as Halliburton.


we need wealth redistribution. i understand rich people do not want to do it voluntarily, but that is what would stimulate the economy. too much is being saved by the very rich, the 1%. Trickle down economics doesnt work if the top keeps it all to themselves.

that, and maybe if we did redistribute wealth, we would see fewer Paris Hiltons or Kim/Chloe/whatever Kardashian or Nicole Richie etc that dominate the headlines but have done nothing to earn their millions.

 

[SSdoc33]

Yes, really. The topic was the economy and how to stimulate it. Powermd thought the government could help with that when it already failed at it. To add to the conversation you bring up Afghanistan and Iraq. I can only guess as to why. Were the wars about stimulating the economy? No. One was about ridding the world of a bunch of crazies and one was about making a democracy in the middle of the region to try to bring the rest of them into the 20th century at least. Your last sentence makes even less sense. "We wouldn't have needed it if the good ol boy from Texas didn't waste all of our money on 2 unwinnable wars"--Okaaaaay. I don't know what you read, but Iraq/Afghanistan did not lead to the recession.

ok, i can can see we are going off on some tangents here. i dont agree with much of your last response but i could type until my fingers come off, and i dont think either of us would change our minds.

as far as the original discussion about the middle class is concerned, i dont like throwing money at the problem, either. but even with all that, the income gap is growing, which is an objective problem. that point really cannot be debated. to powermd's point: what would you do about it?

 

[hyperalgesia]

as far as the original discussion about the middle class is concerned, i dont like throwing money at the problem, either. but even with all that, the income gap is growing, which is an objective problem. that point really cannot be debated. to powermd's point: what would you do about it?

The real driver of the 'income gap' is the explosion of wealth of the top earners, not poverty on the low end. So I don't think it is a problem by itself. I think it would be nice if the prosperity was shared more broadly but it should not in any way affect the success side of the story. Like if you want sick people to be healthier, you don't need to make healthy people sicker.

 

[SSdoc33]

The real driver of the 'income gap' is the explosion of wealth of the top earners, not poverty on the low end. So I don't think it is a problem by itself. I think it would be nice if the prosperity was shared more broadly but it should not in any way affect the success side of the story. Like if you want sick people to be healthier, you don't need to make healthy people sicker.

right, i get that. and i do not believe that there is a finite amount of money that needs to be split. with economic growth, the overall "pie" can grow. but, when those top earners get so big, they wield too much power and influence, both socially and politically. doesnt matter if the rich get richer or the poor get poorer. the difference between the 2 is what is important

 

[hyperalgesia]

right, i get that. and i do not believe that there is a finite amount of money that needs to be split. with economic growth, the overall "pie" can grow. but, when those top earners get so big, they wield too much power and influence, both socially and politically. doesnt matter if the rich get richer or the poor get poorer. the difference between the 2 is what is important

If you look at the wealthiest .01% and how they use their money and power, is it overall beneficial or harmful? Im not talking about companies here. I think overall, when you look at charity and everything, I don't see a malignant force. Show me what you mean.

 

[Ligament]

Let everybody keep their money. Flat tax. We have no moral obligation to keep societal leeches alive and draining the blood of the working class. You want to feed these leeches, by all means pay more tax or donate 25% of your income to charities if you are such a bleeding heart. I'm sure a lot of you socialists on this board were born to money and have guilt about that. I was not, I have debt, and my family has zero wealth.

 

[Ducttape]

i read your note, Ligament, and all that came to mind was


fyi my parents came to this country with no money on a college grant.

the pie is growing for the wealthiest 1%, even the wealthiest 5%. the pie has not changed for the lowest 80%. the wealthiest 0.01% is getting wealthier and by trickle down, they should be spending more of that gain. they are not.

 

[lonelobo]

Let everybody keep their money. Flat tax. We have no moral obligation to keep societal leeches alive and draining the blood of the working class. You want to feed these leeches, by all means pay more tax or donate 25% of your income to charities if you are such a bleeding heart. I'm sure a lot of you socialists on this board were born to money and have guilt about that. I was not, I have debt, and my family has zero wealth.

With the income inequality in this Country, the Flat Tax would disproportionately effect the lowest income. I presume you think everyone on Medicaid is a "societal leech" ?
If you truly came from no money seems you would have a little more empathy for the poor instead of spewing such hate

 

[hyperalgesia]

I think you guys don't recognize how hard it is to get and stay in the 0.01% income group. You really just need to live and let live. Life is certainly not fair but in general people get where they are by hard work and intelligent choices. If I were intelligent and motivated, I wouldn't be yapping away on this website.

 

[bronx43]

right, i get that. and i do not believe that there is a finite amount of money that needs to be split. with economic growth, the overall "pie" can grow. but, when those top earners get so big, they wield too much power and influence, both socially and politically. doesnt matter if the rich get richer or the poor get poorer. the difference between the 2 is what is important

Just curious. Why do you only focus on the inequality, and not the overall living standards? Not that I entirely disagree, but just curious.

 

[bronx43]

i read your note, Ligament, and all that came to mind was


fyi my parents came to this country with no money on a college grant.

the pie is growing for the wealthiest 1%, even the wealthiest 5%. the pie has not changed for the lowest 80%. the wealthiest 0.01% is getting wealthier and by trickle down, they should be spending more of that gain. they are not.

What exactly do you think caused this income gap? Taxes too low? Too high? Neither?

 

[DOctorJay]

Get rid of all income tax and increase sales tax. Everyone pays in (even illegals). Buy more expensive stuff, pay more. Stay frugal, pay less.

 

[hyperalgesia]

I like the idea of replacing income with sales tax. Something wrong with having to report your income to the authorities. Isn't it kind of personal?

 

[Louisville04]

Get rid of all income tax and increase sales tax. Everyone pays in (even illegals). Buy more expensive stuff, pay more. Stay frugal, pay less.

I like the idea of replacing income with sales tax. Something wrong with having to report your income to the authorities. Isn't it kind of personal?

The problem with a sales tax only is that it disproportionately hits the middle and working classes. Where as you might only spend 5% of your income for food, someone else might spend 20% of their income on the same amount of food. In essence they are paying a higher percentage of their salary/income for taxes.

 

[DOctorJay]

So by that logic you're saying we should all pay a similar percentage of our income for our goods.

 

[powermd]

I think you guys don't recognize how hard it is to get and stay in the 0.01% income group. You really just need to live and let live. Life is certainly not fair but in general people get where they are by hard work and intelligent choices. If I were intelligent and motivated, I wouldn't be yapping away on this website.

It's not just about fairness, to me it's much more about building a sustainable economy that encourages continued entrepreneurship and innovation and building a broad wealth base.

The path we're on currently leads to revolution.

Can you not see how the essence of capitalism in this country is to continually refine the process of extracting wealth from lower classes and transfer it to the upper class that owns all the businesses, real estate, and energy?

Eventually we will have two classes, poor employees, and rich owners. Feudalism.

 

[Ligament]

With the income inequality in this Country, the Flat Tax would disproportionately effect the lowest income. I presume you think everyone on Medicaid is a "societal leech" ?
If you truly came from no money seems you would have a little more empathy for the poor instead of spewing such hate

There is no hate, just recognition of reality. Let folks pull themselves up, don't get in their way. But it is their responsibility and nobody else's.

 

[Ligament]

With the income inequality in this Country, the Flat Tax would disproportionately effect the lowest income. I presume you think everyone on Medicaid is a "societal leech" ?
If you truly came from no money seems you would have a little more empathy for the poor instead of spewing such hate

I think by definition people on Medicaid are societal leeches. Explain to me how they are not? Or how they are contributing to society?

 

[Louisville04]

So by that logic you're saying we should all pay a similar percentage of our income for our goods.

No you don’t understand the logic.

If you only had a sales tax (no income tax), it would have to be fairly high and that would more adversely affect low income wagers.

You need a progressive federal income tax like the US currently has. The initial income you earn is used for essentials (food, clothing, shelter) and is taxed at a lower level. As you earn more income (discretionary; non-essential items), it is taxed at a higher level.

 

[Ducttape]

have you ever actually met a medicaid patient?

probably not in your office.

and i get the impression you do not visit Walmart, Target, most supermarkets. anyone there under assistant manager status with a family is eligible for Medicaid.

noted exceptions are Trader Joes or Costco.

 

[Ligament]

have you ever actually met a medicaid patient?

Of course. Did training in Chicago and Detroit.

probably not in your office.

Of course not in my office. I like to be paid for my work, and not lied to or threatened by my patients.

and i get the impression you do not visit Walmart, Target, most supermarkets.

Buy ammo at Walmart when I'm near one, and no problems with Target.

 

[Ligament]

http://www.paychex.com/jobs-index/index.aspx

Scroll down to state and metro performance.

Which state topped the list for employment growth?

Dude all the jobs here are big tech. Amazon, Microsoft, billions of IT companies, startups. Physicians are blue collar in earnings here.

These are not minimum wage employers. The minimum wage employers are getting killed. I'm talking mom and pop stores, restaurants, etc.

 

[DOctorJay]

No I understand just goading you with the counterpoint.

 

[pmrmd]

It's not just about fairness, to me it's much more about building a sustainable economy that encourages continued entrepreneurship and innovation and building a broad wealth base.

The path we're on currently leads to revolution.

Can you not see how the essence of capitalism in this country is to continually refine the process of extracting wealth from lower classes and transfer it to the upper class that owns all the businesses, real estate, and energy?

Eventually we will have two classes, poor employees, and rich owners. Feudalism.

The essence of capitalism is opportunity. Opportunity for all. There is more of it when government does not inject itself into policy. The current wealth disparity is directly due to the government and their fed policy. Entrepreneurship is down under this president. Small business creation is down under this president. That is exactly the opposite of what you are looking for. Big government makes a policy, the big companies then lobby for a carve out which they get, and the small business folks get to bear the burden. The Democratic party is the party of big government and big business.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...g-created.htm?ntt=small business job creation

 

[powermd]

The essence of capitalism is opportunity. Opportunity for all. There is more of it when government does not inject itself into policy. The current wealth disparity is directly due to the government and their fed policy. Entrepreneurship is down under this president. Small business creation is down under this president. That is exactly the opposite of what you are looking for. Big government makes a policy, the big companies then lobby for a carve out which they get, and the small business folks get to bear the burden. The Democratic party is the party of big government and big business.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/011415-734766-businesses-dying-faster-than-theyre-being-created.htm?ntt=small business job creation

Wow, you are truly delusional.

The essence of capitalism is not opportunity, it's by definition the single minded pursuit of personal profits.

This leads to all kinds of problems when a market player gets big enough to muscle suppliers, customers, employees, competitors, and the government. So in a civilized society you NEED government regulation to level the playing field, ensuring OPPORTUNITY for all.

Your reference above comes from Jim Clifton, and these ideas come from his book "The Coming Jobs War". In the article above he points out that things have been particularly bad for entrepreneurs since 2008. No kidding! But is that the fault of President Obama, or the Great Recession? Sounds like you want us to believe the very tiresome conservative dogma that the Great Recession occurred in a vacuum and somehow President Obama is solely responsible.

The bottom line is that entrepreneurs start businesses when there is demand. Think about it. Who among us hires one more person than we need to unless demand supports it? And without disposable middle class income, you won't have enough demand to sustain the kind of new business creation that Jim Clifton thinks we need to avoid disaster.

 

[specepic]

thinking more taxation is the answer? somehow my state manages to school the kids and pave the roads with no sales tax and no state income tax. prop tax tends to be steep however which I am ok with as it goes more locally and town government balance sheets are alot easier to follow than state or fed gov't.

the left wants to tax tax tax but refuses to look at waste and abuse. I am pretty confident that is where the money is you want for programs. show me a lean government first, then I will consider throwing more $ at it

do you know the IRS just hired the same company who screwed up the ACA website? you cant make this stuff up. what do you have to do in DC to lose the feds as a customer?

 

[powermd]

thinking more taxation is the answer? somehow my state manages to school the kids and pave the roads with no sales tax and no state income tax. prop tax tends to be steep however which I am ok with as it goes more locally and town government balance sheets are alot easier to follow than state or fed gov't.

the left wants to tax tax tax but refuses to look at waste and abuse. I am pretty confident that is where the money is you want for programs. show me a lean government first, then I will consider throwing more $ at it

do you know the IRS just hired the same company who screwed up the ACA website? you cant make this stuff up. what do you have to do in DC to lose the feds as a customer?

Actually...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20150131-column.html

Some quotes:

"The Obama administration placed evidence-based policymaking at the heart of six major social initiatives covering job training, career education, K-12 education, teen pregnancy, and maternal and infant well-being, and the effort is beginning to bear fruit."

"Evidence-based policymaking has a Republican pedigree and bipartisan support in Congress."

"Yet Capitol Hill Republicans have painted bull's-eyes on all the Obama initiatives."

 

[pmrmd]

Wow, you are truly delusional.

The essence of capitalism is not opportunity, it's by definition the single minded pursuit of personal profits.

This leads to all kinds of problems when a market player gets big enough to muscle suppliers, customers, employees, competitors, and the government. So in a civilized society you NEED government regulation to level the playing field, ensuring OPPORTUNITY for all.

Your reference above comes from Jim Clifton, and these ideas come from his book "The Coming Jobs War". In the article above he points out that things have been particularly bad for entrepreneurs since 2008. No kidding! But is that the fault of President Obama, or the Great Recession? Sounds like you want us to believe the very tiresome conservative dogma that the Great Recession occurred in a vacuum and somehow President Obama is solely responsible.

The bottom line is that entrepreneurs start businesses when there is demand. Think about it. Who among us hires one more person than we need to unless demand supports it? And without disposable middle class income, you won't have enough demand to sustain the kind of new business creation that Jim Clifton thinks we need to avoid disaster.

Wow, you are truly delusional. You continue to espouse the policies that have led to the worst recovery after a recession. The government is not leveling the playing field. They are creating policy that picks winners and losers. For example, we have Dodd-Frank. There could have been one easy fix, a law that states banks that originate home loans cannot sell them to the government or bundle them into CDOs. Instead there has been the opposite of what was intended. The big banks have more size and wealth now than before the crash and the smaller community banks are closed. That's great for business! (And before you blame the GOP, I don't recall a single Democrat looking to rein in mortgages back then. Tons of Democrats on Wall Street selling the CDOs. Liberals and equally culpable for the crash.) Or perhaps you might remember that Obama decided big business would be the winner and not have to comply with the ACA last year but small business did. Awesome! Did you notice your taxes go up because you couldn't write off your health insurance anymore? The Feds policy for the last 6 years has picked winners, those that are invested in wall street. Thanks Democrats! I can go on and on.

The essence of capitalism is independence, contrasting with the essence of socialism which is dependence.

 

[powermd]

Wow, you are truly delusional. You continue to espouse the policies that have led to the worst recovery after a recession. The government is not leveling the playing field. They are creating policy that picks winners and losers. For example, we have Dodd-Frank. There could have been one easy fix, a law that states banks that originate home loans cannot sell them to the government or bundle them into CDOs. Instead there has been the opposite of what was intended. The big banks have more size and wealth now than before the crash and the smaller community banks are closed. That's great for business! (And before you blame the GOP, I don't recall a single Democrat looking to rein in mortgages back then. Tons of Democrats on Wall Street selling the CDOs. Liberals and equally culpable for the crash.) Or perhaps you might remember that Obama decided big business would be the winner and not have to comply with the ACA last year but small business did. Awesome! Did you notice your taxes go up because you couldn't write off your health insurance anymore? The Feds policy for the last 6 years has picked winners, those that are invested in wall street. Thanks Democrats! I can go on and on.

The essence of capitalism is independence, contrasting with the essence of socialism which is dependence.

It's readily apparent that you can go on and on.

The question is where on earth do you get your information? Conservative talk radio?

You say "You continue to espouse the policies that have led to the worst recovery after a recession."

Well, Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates (one of the largest hedge funds in the world) would disagree with you on the issue of how this recovery compares to others.

As for the "policies" I espouse, they are merely ideas. The concept is to find ways to get more disposable income in the hands of the middle class to stimulate demand. I have yet to hear anyone argue convincingly that this is a bad idea. Please show me where this has been tried and it failed.

Let me get this right, you're saying Dodd-Frank was responsible for "big banks" now having "more size and wealth now than before the crash and the smaller community banks are closed."

As a doctor you should be the first to recognize that correlation does not equal causation.

Please explain in detail how Dodd-Frank did what you claim above, and please provide appropriate references. Otherwise it's just hot air.

Here are my references on the Great Recession and Ray Dalio's analysis of this recovery in relation to other recoveries.

Read: http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileM...k-at-deleveragings--ray-dalio-bridgewater.pdf

Key info:

US Deleveraging, 2008-Present

Like the US deleveraging in the 1930s, the lead-up consisted of a debt driven boom, and the deleveraging has transpired in two stages: a contraction in incomes followed by reflation and growth. However, because of a swift policy response from the Fed, which was prompt in guaranteeing debt and aggressively printing money, the contractionary period only lasted six months (versus over three years in the 1930s), and since then there has been reflation and debt reduction through a mix of rising nominal incomes, default and debt repayment.

As shown in the charts below, unlike both the US in the 1930s and Japan since 1990, the US has quickly entered a reflation and ended the “ugly deflationary deleveraging” phase of the process (which lasted from July 2008, just before Lehman fell, to March 2009, when the Fed instituted its aggressive program of quantitative easing to monetize the debts). During the “ugly” phase, incomes fell, debt burdens rose from about 340% GDP to 370% and stocks lost almost half their value. Because so much debt around the world is dollar denominated, the contraction in global credit and dollar liquidity created a squeeze for dollars, and the dollar strengthened significantly against a trade-weighted basket. Exports collapsed faster than domestic demand. Following the reflation that began in March 2009, incomes recovered, debt burdens fell below their initial starting level to around 335% and stocks recovered all of their losses. At this time, the credit markets are largely healed and private sector credit growth is improving. Thus far, this deleveraging would win our award of the most beautiful deleveraging on record. The key going forward will be for policy makers to maintain balance so that the debt/income ratio keeps declining in an orderly way.

 

[pmrmd]

OMG man. In simple terms, the government set up specific standards in a one-size-fits-all fashion that government typically does. The smaller banks could not meet those standards and some had to close, even though they weren't involved in the CDOs and default swaps and the criminal behavior that the larger players were. Hence, closure for many, and constrained business for the rest. Tell me you pay more attention to the world and did not read about this over and over and over and over and over...What do you read, may I ask? This was in all the major news and financial news outlets. Since you need my help...Key words were "Dodd Frank community banks impact". 280,000 results.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankso...ank-bank-regulation-is-still-a-guessing-game/
http://www.americanbanker.com/bankt...ty-banks-too-small-too-survive-1054241-1.html

So, yeah, I can go on and on. As can you. Except I have facts on my side, readily apparent for everyone to recongnize.

How about this latest wrinkle. GDP growth last quarter was down to 2.6%, mainly due to Christmas shopping, and finished the year at 2.4%. Growth should be in the 3s by now. Also remember in March 2013 the GDP calculation was changed by the administration which artificially raised the number. So previous growth listed in the 3s would be 4s and 4s would be 5s.
http://www.epi.org/publication/methods-story-gdp-data-show-economy-healed/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/your-money/getting-creative-with-the-gdp.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Perhaps you cheerlead for mediocrity, but this is now year 6 of the liberal plan. Surely the liberal policy could stimulate better demand by now? Or is it just hot air?

 

[powermd]

A detailed debate about Dodd-Frank will take us way off topic. I will concede that government regulation can be ham-handed (hello? ACA?), but there are exemptions for smaller banks in the implementation of Dodd-Frank, and it's not like community banks were innocent in the financial crisis. There probably should be some protections against predatory lending and a requirement to know something about the person your lending money to besides their credit score.

As for liberal policy not getting us as far as you would like the country to be, what liberal policies are you referring to? Shall we examine them, one by one?

Let's not. That will take literally forever and squelch any further discussion of my real point which is that we need to get cash flowing through the middle class again.

I'm sure you will have a laundry list of complaints about each and every piece of legislation sponsored by our President, and it was never my goal in this debate to defend it.

All I have to say in response to your quip about the GDP is imagine what it would be if we actually managed to get some of the wealth parked in assets owned by the upper 1% to flow through the economy via the middle class. Then you'd see the GDP where you want it.

OMG man. In simple terms, the government set up specific standards in a one-size-fits-all fashion that government typically does. The smaller banks could not meet those standards and some had to close, even though they weren't involved in the CDOs and default swaps and the criminal behavior that the larger players were. Hence, closure for many, and constrained business for the rest. Tell me you pay more attention to the world and did not read about this over and over and over and over and over...What do you read, may I ask? This was in all the major news and financial news outlets. Since you need my help...Key words were "Dodd Frank community banks impact". 280,000 results.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankso...ank-bank-regulation-is-still-a-guessing-game/
http://www.americanbanker.com/bankt...ty-banks-too-small-too-survive-1054241-1.html

So, yeah, I can go on and on. As can you. Except I have facts on my side, readily apparent for everyone to recongnize.

How about this latest wrinkle. GDP growth last quarter was down to 2.6%, mainly due to Christmas shopping, and finished the year at 2.4%. Growth should be in the 3s by now. Also remember in March 2013 the GDP calculation was changed by the administration which artificially raised the number. So previous growth listed in the 3s would be 4s and 4s would be 5s.
http://www.epi.org/publication/methods-story-gdp-data-show-economy-healed/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/your-money/getting-creative-with-the-gdp.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Perhaps you cheerlead for mediocrity, but this is now year 6 of the liberal plan. Surely the liberal policy could stimulate better demand by now? Or is it just hot air?

 

[pmrmd]

A detailed debate about Dodd-Frank will take us way off topic. I will concede that government regulation can be ham-handed (hello? ACA?), but there are exemptions for smaller banks in the implementation of Dodd-Frank, and it's not like community banks were innocent in the financial crisis. There probably should be some protections against predatory lending and a requirement to know something about the person your lending money to besides their credit score.

As for liberal policy not getting us as far as you would like the country to be, what liberal policies are you referring to? Shall we examine them, one by one?

Let's not. That will take literally forever and squelch any further discussion of my real point which is that we need to get cash flowing through the middle class again.

I'm sure you will have a laundry list of complaints about each and every piece of legislation sponsored by our President, and it was never my goal in this debate to defend it.

All I have to say in response to your quip about the GDP is imagine what it would be if we actually managed to get some of the wealth parked in assets owned by the upper 1% to flow through the economy via the middle class. Then you'd see the GDP where you want it.

6:18 p.m.????????????? What the heck were you doing typing this when the game was on?

 

[lobelsteve]

Why dont you two get a room.

 

[specepic]

Actually...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20150131-column.html

Some quotes:

"The Obama administration placed evidence-based policymaking at the heart of six major social initiatives covering job training, career education, K-12 education, teen pregnancy, and maternal and infant well-being, and the effort is beginning to bear fruit."

"Evidence-based policymaking has a Republican pedigree and bipartisan support in Congress."

"Yet Capitol Hill Republicans have painted bull's-eyes on all the Obama initiatives."

hmmm, so you respond with a non sequitor. based on what I read on here, and most political discussions, no one is going to change anyone's mind. I will restate for clarity. The gov't wastes a **** ton of money. when they stop doing that I might consider sending more tax dollars to the cause.

I could also live without the Obama and Dem "1%" class warfare BS. I should be getting a handwritten thx you note from the IRs and BO for my huge taxes, instead he states I'm not paying my fair share.

 

[Ducttape]

powermd will state his opinion, but i dont think the answer is more more taxes, especially for someone in your relatively low tax bracket.

unless you a net worth of over $8.4 million, you arent in the 1%...

 

[hyperalgesia]

I just read that Obama wants to raid the ss trust fund to bail out the ss disability fund. Crazy wtf?

The programs that are not sustainable like ssd and Medicare need to be completely restructured not tweaked. The tweaking just f's it up even more and the recipients lose.

The best way to help the working middle class is to lower the tax on the lower brackets.

If there were extra money I would use it to consolidate the first 3 tax brackets up to an income of 89k and lower that tax to 5%. That would benefit everyone who pays taxes but especially the working poor and middle class. It's much more helpful than some new wasteful government program.

 

[specepic]

There is a big difference between what is politically convenient/"greater good" and what is ethical/just. For example, Hitler wanted to exterminate those who did not contribute to society, which any economist could easily justify on paper, but from an ethical standpoint is terrible. Pardon the extreme example. We talk about jacking taxes up on millionares and billionares basically because they can "afford it", which is total BS. What they are doing is justifying gov't theft and it is a very slippery slope.

Can an economist make an agrument for income redistribution? sure. Is it just or ethical, not in my opinion. The reason Tom Brady makes so damn much is b/c he is damn good and millions are willing to pay to watch, buy jerseys, etc. He paid what the market supports. If you dont like dont steal his money, shut off your TV. If we decide the gov't should steal 60% of his money, should he be also entitled to a percentage of all national revenue that "trickles down" (how much $ was made at bars around the country on Superbowl sunday, etc.?)

Same applies to class warfare and the 1% thing which is total crap. The reason we have concentration of wealth is that we have collectively decided we prefer products and services from fewer large companies. If you are tweeting on an iphone from occupy wall street the hypocrisy is deep. If you want to see more even income, buy your food from the farmer directly, ditch your cell phone, ride a bike to work, etc. or ST_U, IMhO

 

[powermd]

6:18 p.m.????????????? What the heck were you doing typing this when the game was on?

Ha ha... being productive arguing with people I disagree with on the internet.

 

[powermd]

hmmm, so you respond with a non sequitor. based on what I read on here, and most political discussions, no one is going to change anyone's mind. I will restate for clarity. The gov't wastes a **** ton of money. when they stop doing that I might consider sending more tax dollars to the cause.

I could also live without the Obama and Dem "1%" class warfare BS. I should be getting a handwritten thx you note from the IRs and BO for my huge taxes, instead he states I'm not paying my fair share.

The point of my non-sequitur was that Obama is at least trying out the concept of evidence based policy so that perhaps our money will be better spent. What a concept!

You argue against taxing the rich as though the policies of trickle down economics haven't unfairly favored them for 30 years now. Perhaps it's time to even the score for the benefit of the middle class. Trickle down economics is a form of class warfare too you know.